CapitolFax.com - Latest Comments in Question of the day

Re: Question of the day

Frank Sobotka — Tue, 07 Aug 2007 00:57:01 -0000

"Brand new second-graders should know how to tell time."

Mebbe so, but is it that important anymore?
The hard part - knowing the difference between hour/minute hands - is becoming irrelevant over time. Digital clocks make it a simple left-to-right reading exercise.

Re: Question of the day

irishmom07 — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 20:29:37 -0000

I am a retired teacher who taught in a year round school. The reason we went to year-round was because of overcrowding. The bad thing about that was you were in a different room every three months. We got the same pay as all the other teachers. The reason some people get paid twelve months is that is how they decide to receive their pay. They could opt for being paid the nine months they work. I was in the Chicago Public Schools for eleven years and taught in parochiol schools for seven years. Never made close to the money I have read about above.

Now that school is on year round and has a little longer time off in the summer, maybe a month. That is great. You get to take vacations in off months and sometimes it's cheaper because it's off season. Imagine going to Disneyland and not have to wait will all the summer crowds. I loved year-round school except for the changing of classrooms every three months. It was so good for the kids and the teachers too. I really liked it.

I was in an air-conditioned school and that made a big difference. But, now with the kids going back to school in August it is still hot. September can be pretty uncomfortable too. If the schools could get air conditioning and/or overhead fans in the classroom that might help too.

Year-round school has my vote.

Re: Question of the day

Belle — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:45:07 -0000

Not until enough time and study has gone by to see if it actually is or isn't a benefit. Acting before knowing how it shakes out in the long run is what 'sight reading' and the elimination of phonics was all about. Reading scores bottomed out. (I know it was only part of the problem but they tanked anyway) For once I'd like those who have the power to change education - from methods, to funding, to the class schedule - act wisely. The up scores may be an anomoly. It's too soon to tell.

Re: Question of the day

Ghost — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:35:22 -0000

Yes, as mentioned it improves the learning curve if they continue on with the curriculum without large gaps.

It would also help out parents who would not need to find child care for such large periods of time. The three weeks after each semester is also nice, gives a more consitent break at a regular intervals

Re: Question of the day

Plutocrat03 — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:32:26 -0000

I am not looking for an argument about teacher compensation. As I noted I am aware of what our teacher's get paid, but have not tried to research the rest of the state.

I would argue that teacher's who want better compensation and pensions should go work at the northeast end of the state.

As far as the pension being paid for remark, I agree there is a cost. However the benefits are very much out of prooportion to what is paid in( not the state's inability to fund its pension obligations) . If the payments were designed on an actuarial basis, either the benefit would go way down, or the contribution would go way up.

This is all part of the I'll pay you tomorrow promise goverment worker's had years ago where they were promised a good pension, far in excess of Social Security for a lower than average pay package. In may areas of the state, public worker's salaries exceed what is being paid for the same job in the private sector, while still pushing an overly generous pension.

We have at least two HS teachers who are listed as having salaries of more than 121K, this could yield a pension of more than 90K plus inflation per year. Not bad compensation or a pension.

Remember many of the folks paying their property taxes have no chance of a 90K per year pension, no matter what kind of contribution they make.

So the blanket statement of teacher's need more money is nonsense. In the cases where it is poor, the steps need to be take to improve it.

Re: Question of the day

jake — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 17:05:31 -0000

There is a saying, "If you think education is expensive, compare it to the cost of ignorance." University instructor who deal with both students from the U.S. and from overseas will tell you that our kids are falling behind educationally as compared to Western Europe and to that fraction of Asian kids who have access to reasonable schools. This will predictably impinge on our well-being in the future--indeed may already be doing so. We should give our youngsters access to year-round schooling and figure out how to pay for it. It might be phased in with the extra term being offered but optional, and paid for partially by tuition offset by scholarships for those of limited means.

Re: Question of the day

Yellow Dog Democrat — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 16:19:55 -0000

FYI, as the Sun-Times points out, while most year-round schools actually have the same number of instructional days, Alaine Locke Charter Academy has 20 more days of instruction. Their school day also goes all the way until 5 p.m., something I'm sure that working parents appreciate, as well as the neighborhood.

Re: Question of the day

A Teacher — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:57:10 -0000

I want to know who thinks teachers actually get a break over the summer? We still have professional development to keep up with the ever-changing state regulations, a master's degree to earn so that our pay keeps up with other occupations with the same years of experience, and when we finish with that, we have to write our curriculum for the next year's classes. When do we get to rest, because if we do, I must have missed something! P.S. Where do teachers make $80k+ because I am DEFINITELY in the wrong district!

Re: Question of the day

Mr. W.T. Rush — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:55:55 -0000

Hey Cardsfan:
Better check up on the old lady
No one has worked any overtime :)

Re: Question of the day

annoyed all the time — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:52:25 -0000

It is a good idea to keep the elementary school kids thinking and not falling back however, i agree on the AC issue in the summer heat which can be tweaked to have maybe 4 -5 week break in the summer months. However, for working parents this creates a difficult situation where now there are summer camps for the kids to go to - if there were 3 week breaks all year round there wouldhave to be supporting programs for kids who have 2 working parents. High School should have summer off to accommodate athletic programs as well as allowing them time to work in the summer and to take it one step further it would be wonderful to see some type or work/vounteer/camp counselor requirement for high school kids - motivation!!!!!

Re: Question of the day

Team Sleep — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:31:48 -0000

Enemy, I mentioned operational expenses. Paying cooks, maintenance men and custodians would require tweaks to each CBA, and there would be the increase in food, gas, supplies, etc.

Cermak, I think you are on to something. However, schools should offer supplemental or advanced classes for better students as a way to bolster their learning and study skills as well as possibly earning college credits.

The interesting comment I used to hear from some of the poor students is that they hated summer school and how it was unfair. Two points on this contention. First, if you screw up, you should have to correct your mistakes. Second, a worker in the real world would not be allowed to make a blunder and then not go back to fix the problem.

We have turned our students into lazy, arrogant kids. These same kids are our future. Scary.

Re: Question of the day

Cardsfan — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:25:50 -0000

My wife works on the House staff and has for years and all of her teacher friends make more than her and they dont work 500 hours of free overtime during session.

Re: Question of the day

Sanchez — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:23:28 -0000

Teachers in Central IL are paid well. They work 9 months out of the year for 12 months of pay. I am sick of hearing them whine about being underpaid. I know alot of people with college degrees who dont make in the mid to high $30's while they are still in there 20's, like most of them do and they work year round. They can also further their education and make much more. Stop whining!!!!!

Re: Question of the day

cermak_rd — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:09:18 -0000

It seems to me that if this is an effort to improve the bottom quarter of students, why not keep those children in school during the summer and perhaps the next quarter as well, and let the top half of students have the time off to pursue other interests? That way the money is being spent in a way that is most likely to pay off. A straight A student doesn't need the schedule jockeying and likely has the tools to educate himself on various topics during the summer break.

The schools should be ugpraded with air conditioning anyway, due to the number of children with health concerns. Also, some Sept days are awful warm and as are some May and early June days.

Re: Question of the day

Old Year-Round Kid — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 15:04:00 -0000

I went to year round schools overseas. At about the time I got tired of being in school we got a 3 week break. About the time I was bored at home, we went back to school. It was great to have a long Christmas break. You get to enjoy the seasons instead of just the summer. (We went Jan-Dec.)

Schools are doing it - which means it works and the trend will likely continue, just like uniforms in middle schools in Springfield. The school board was upset because they didn't sanction a district-wide policy for dress code, but it happened school by school because it worked.

Re: Question of the day

ArchPundit — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:28:04 -0000

====Iâ€™ve known WORK another job in the summer. Yes, there is an option to have a lower paycheck year around so as to receive 12 months of pay. But in many areas of Illinois teachers are paid as if they are seasonal employees. If we make the school year run through the full 12 months, with shorter breaks, teachers will not be able to take jobs to supplement their income.

More and more this is moving towards having teachers doing different kinds of work in the school over the summer. 11 month contracts or 9+2 or 3 are very common. It's far more common to expect teachers to be getting a masters or working in their district than to work random summer jobs. It's a professional occupation and so teachers treat it like one.

There will still be plenty of side jobs to work in the shorter vacations as well. ETS still needs graders for AP exams, standardized test grading, teaching workshops, etc. Masters programs already work on customized schedules for teachers so those programs will simply adopt to the new schedule.

It's a bit hard to understand the rather strange opposition to year around school. The only reason the current summer schedule exists is because it was created to adapt to an agrarian economy based on family farms. Family farms don't exist in anything similar to that form and while agriculture plays a role in the economy, it's not an agrarian based society.

Re: Question of the day

Kevin Highland — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:13:30 -0000

My kids attend a "year round school" There are no additional days of school per year just that the summer is spread throughout the year. I've seen better grades out of my children since this calendar was instituted...they seem to be less bored with school and say they are ready to go back after the "summer break". I've noticed they forget less between grades also!

Re: Question of the day

Gregor — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 14:00:10 -0000

Long as they can get out of class for Deer and Turkey Seasons, right?:-)

I'm for year-round school with appropriate shorter vacations spread out in the year. I could actually do more fun things with the family in that kind of situation, regarding travel opportunities and time off from work.

I also believe the actual education they get would be better without the first 2-3 months being review and remedial.

We'd need a massive capital infusion to get the schools configured for the AC, and the energy costs of that are nothing to sneeze at either.

But it's nothing that can't be overcome. Biggest problem is psychological, overcoming about a century of habit and outmoded tradition.

Re: Question of the day

c-rock — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:24:15 -0000

who wants to trust their kids to government schools all year? I rather not trust them for such. They done enough damage to our kids.

Re: Question of the day

Rebel13 — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 13:17:25 -0000

Salaries would not or should not go up. My sister teaches in California which has year-round schools.

They have 4 tracts, which is 3 mo on, 1 mo off (go to school may,june,july-off aug and so forth on a rotationg schedule)and they follow it just like their students so they still get 3 mo off every year. This allows better used of the fixed facilities since they are being utilized all year.

High School is still traditional due to college requirements.

One problem as mentioned above is air conditioning which would be a requirement for this to work. Southern California can get away with it since they have nicer weather year-round. Imagine you are on the track that goes to school on June,July,Aug, off sept, in-school oct,nov,dec off jan, in school feb,mar,apr off may. Yuck!

Re: Question of the day

Sage observer — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:55:15 -0000

How would all of the farm work get done? This is the most ridiculous thing I ever heard of -- for decades, family farms have been pressured by low prices, foreign imports, skyrocketing fuel prices, and developers encroaching on our land -- and now someone wants to come and keep our kids in school during prime daylight hours? There's no way all of the fieldwork will get done, and everyone in the state will starve.

Re: Question of the day

Cal Skinner — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:53:52 -0000

It would save money on new buildings.

Re: Question of the day

Enemy of the State — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 12:10:14 -0000

Nobody has mentioned the extra cost of support staff. Bus drivers, cooks, custodians, etc. all would need extra compensation. Fuel and utility costs would also increase. If you think the Japanese do such a great job, send your kid to Japan. Check out the sixth grade suicide rate in the Land of the Rising Sun before you buy that ticket.

Re: Question of the day

winco — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:59:28 -0000

no. I support shutting down everything else in the summer, too. We all should get summers off.

Re: Question of the day

Many Teachers Work Summers — Mon, 06 Aug 2007 11:58:10 -0000

Except for those teachers who were married and viewed summers off with their kids as a way to be stay-at-home moms for 1/4 of the year, most teachers I've known WORK another job in the summer. Yes, there is an option to have a lower paycheck year around so as to receive 12 months of pay. But in many areas of Illinois teachers are paid as if they are seasonal employees. If we make the school year run through the full 12 months, with shorter breaks, teachers will not be able to take jobs to supplement their income. That means they should be paid like full-time professionals. That means an increase in taxes. I don't think there is a groundswell of support in Illinois to raise taxes.